THE EMERGENCE OF UNIVERSALISM AND THE DECLINE OF SUPRANATIONALISM | Riyanto | Mimbar Hukum 23873 64313 1 PB

308

MIMBAR HUKUM Volume 29, Nomor 2, Juni 2017, Halaman 308-320

THE EMERGENCE OF UNIVERSALISM AND THE DECLINE OF
SUPRANATIONALISM
Sigit Riyanto*
Department of Internasional Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
Jalan Sosio Justicia No. 1 Bulaksumur, Sleman, D.I. Yogyakarta, 55281
Abstract
In the context of addressing challenges of globalization there are many issues deserve to be discussed
and elaborated. This paper addressed the three fundamental issues which are inseparable and interconnected each other: Spreading Universalism; Reinterpretation of Sovereignty, and the Decline of Supranationalism. The role of international organizations in the contemporary international system remain
signiicant, however, constituents in the member States would judge whether they could maintain their
relevance to the constituents interests and keep mutual relatianship with the member States.
Keywords: globalization, sovereignty, supra-nationalisme, universalism, multilateralism.
Intisari
Ada beragam persoalan yang layak diperdebatkan dan dijelaskan dalam mencermati tantangan globalisasi.
Tiga persoalan mendasar dan saling terkait menjadi fokus bahasan dalam tulisan ini yakni: Universalisme
yang makin meluas; re-interpretasi kedaulatan dan melemahnya supranasionalisme. Dewasa ini peran
institusi internasional masih memiliki peran yang signiikan, namun, Negara­negara akan mencermati
apakah institusi-isntitusi internasional ini mampu menjaga relevansinya terhadap kepentingan konstituen

dan hubungan yangsaling menguntungkan dengan negara anggotanya.
Kata Kunci: globalisasi, kedaulatan, supra nasional, universalisme, multilateralisme.
Pokok Muatan
A. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................
B. Discussion .........................................................................................................................................
1. Emerging Universalism ...............................................................................................................
2. Sovereignty Reinterpreted ...........................................................................................................
3. Response to Supranationalism .....................................................................................................
C. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................

*

Email korespondensi: riyanto@gadjahmada.edu.

309
310
310
313
316
301

Riyanto, The Emergence of Universalism and the Decline of Supranationalism

A.

Introduction
We are living in the era of transparancy,
globalism and globalization. We have witnessed that
our society has changed and is changing quickly.
Tom Friedman is right when he was saying that the
world is lat.1 The phenomenon of globalization
compels States, individuals and corporations to
compete not only at local or national level, but, at
the international; and even in the global level.
As a scholar ever underlined that there is a
possibility in which globalization force States in the
”tri­lemma” situation. In this state of afairs, a State
have to strike the balance concerning three interconnected issues: sovereignty, democratization, and
liberalization. These issues are double-edged sword
in the perspective that if we open ourselves to the

liberalization process, then State sovereignty would
be strained. In the meantime, if we give emphasize
to democratization, then as consequence, we would
be overriding the liberalization process and vice
versa.2
Another plausible argument why globalization
is provoking debate, especially in the context of
considering the role of international organization,
recent trend have demonstrated that international
organizations have become increasingly active
players in the ield of international law and
policy making. This development interestingly,
has not always and necessarily been calculated

1

2

3

4

5

309

and anticipated by the Member States who have
established the international organizations.3 In addition, there is a general feature in the international
community in which certain International Organizations come to exist in all area of international
relations; economic, social and political, and very
unfortunately considerably limiting the outonomy
of sovereign States. This development has serious
consequences especially for third world States and
peoples there in. In fact, the sovereign economic
decision making authority has been relocated from
the hand of States authority to certain international
institutions such as : the World Trade Organization,
the International Monetery Fund, the World Bank,
and even to regional organisation such as the
European Union.4 Consequently, the eicacy and

legitimacy of international organizations and their
decisions has become controversial, particularly in
the last two decades, and frequently the issue has
been critically dealt with from the perspective of
the democracy deicit and accountability of such
international organizations to the constituents in the
member states.5
Thus, in the context of contemporary interStates relations, there are many issues deserve
to be further discussed and elaborated when
we are addressing challenges of globalization.
In this paper, the present writer would like to
address the three fundamental issues which are

In this regard, Friedman has pointed out that globalization could be interpreted as integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to
a degree never witnessed before- in a way that enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world further, faster,
deeper and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is enabling the world to reach into individuals, corporations and nation-states farther,
faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before.
It is interesting that in this context, Professor Dani Rodrik has ever outlined the three possible responses to this situation. First, ignore the
problem and push for deeper globalization, at the cost of damaging cross-border consequences. Secondly, harmonize trade rules across the
board, at the cost of imposing ill­itting rules on all. Third, restrict globalization, at the cost of giving up some gains of trade. Furthermore, to

address this conundrum, he proposed a compromise with the idea of “democracy-enhancing globalization”. Unlike hyper-globalization, which
justiies all rules that restrict democracy in the name of free trade, democracy­enhancing globalization would not undermine the legitimacy of
the existing democratic institutions in the State concerned. In this framework, the democratic process would be exercised to open up markets
and harmonize trade rules. He argues that globalization works best when it is not pushed too far, as this allows domestic authorities to retain
adequate policymaking space. Hyper-globalization, where the free market runs unchecked, will eventually create a crisis of legitimacy as it
will undermine many of the things citizens expect their state to provide; such as regulations regarding inance or product safety, a fair tax
regime, redistribution, and institutional practices such as employer-employee bargaining. Ignoring the problems caused by globalization is,
therefore, not an option for policymakers. See generally Dani Rodrik, “How to save Globalization from its Cheerleaders”, The Journal of
International Trade and Diplomacy, Vol.1, No. 2, 2007, pp. 1-33.
See Jan Wouters & Philip De Man, 2009, International Organization as Law -Makers, Centre for Global Governance Studies Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, Leuven.
See for example B S Chimni, “International Institution Today: An Imperial Global State in the Making”, European Journal of Internasional
Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2004, p. 2.
Tetsuo Sato, “Legitimacy of International Organizations and Their Decisions- Challenges that International Organizations Face in the 21st
Century”, Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2009, pp. 11-30.

310

MIMBAR HUKUM Volume 29, Nomor 2, Juni 2017, Halaman 308-320

inseparable and inter-connected each other. As a
matter of fact, these issues have to be dealt with
cautiously and vigorously. The three relevant and
interconnected issues are: Spreading Universalism;
Reinterpretation of Sovereignty, and the Decline of
Supra-nationalism.
B.
1.

Discussion
Emerging Universalism
From my point of view as an international
lawyer, there is tendency of a cross fertilization
link between Human Rights and International Law,
in the era of globalism and globalization across
the globe. There are arguments that should be put
forward to support this theory. The starting point for
the debate on the linkage between human rights and
international law should be derived from the legacy
of the Grotius (1583- 1645); especially concerning

his doctrine on Humanitarian Intervention.6
Apart from that, we could also learn from the
idea that legal norms are relecting social standards,
and the main interest in the efort of human rights
protection has also been induced by changes of
the individual attitude and governmental policy.
The factual reasons regarding the strengthening
of universalism in the contemporary international
law and international relations can be ascertained
as follow: “The strengthening of globalism and
movement of encountering to “status quo”.
Traditionally, scholars are divided into two
mainstreams, namely, the “idealist” and/or “internationalist” paradigm vis-a-vis “realist “ paradigm
in the context of theorizing international relations.
However, when States have to deal with the
process of globalization and globalism; there is

6

strong question on the “status quo” concept such

as absolute State sovereignty. This question arises,
especially when there are problems necessitate
international and or trans-national approach. In fact,
there is no State capable of handling the process of
globalization and globalism alone. This is logical
situation; particularly, in the case of responding
transnational problems such as in the cases of
international crime, terrorism, or even transnational
organized crime. The national authority cannot use
State’s sovereignty as a shield in dealing with transboundary or transnational issues.
a.
The Urgency to Set The Rules On
Human Rights In The International
Law
There might be a question on why
human rights must be formulated and
regulated under the international law and
international relations. There are some points
need to be taken into account in responding
such a question. Firstly, it must be noted

that in the aftermath of the World War II,
individuals possess a legal standing before
international court and constitute as one of
the subjects of international law. Moreover,
the international community through
international organizations sets a standard
for the protection of human rights, in the
form of international legal instruments. This
development is an indication of support and
authorization of the international community
in the legal codiication of human rights.
Furthermore, the international community
also built the institutional structure of
international protection for individual person.

Humanitarian intervention refers to armed interference in one State by another State(s) or International Organizations with the stated objective
of ending or reducing sufering within the intervened State. That sufering may be the result of civil war, humanitarian crisis, gross violation
of human rights, generalized of violence, or crimes by the irst State including genocide. The goal of humanitarian intervention is neither
annexation nor interference with territorial integrity, but minimization of the sufering of citizens, mostly civilians in that State. The claimed
rationale behind such an intervention is the belief, embodied in international customary law in a duty under certain circumstances to disregard

a State’s unconditional sovereignty to preserve our common humanity and universal humanitarian values. Another deinition suggested as
follow : “Military action taken by a state or group of states, in the territory of another state against that state or its leaders, without that state’s
consent, which is justiied partially or in whole by a humanitarian or protective concern for the population of the host state.” See for example
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), 2001, The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, p.1. See also Melissa Labonte, 2013,
Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms, Strategic Framing, and Intervention Lessons for the responsibility to Protect, Routledge, New York,
p. 24.

Riyanto, The Emergence of Universalism and the Decline of Supranationalism

Hence, there are mechanisms and institutions
have been developed and authorized in the
context of human rights protection around
the world. International community through
international organization set up relevant
institutions such as: The United Nations
High Commissioner on Human Rights
which later on has been transformed in to
the Human Rights Council (HRC), The
United Nations High Commissioner on
Refugee (UNHCR), and needless to say,
including the establishment of regional court
in some regions, such as in Europe, Africa,
and Inter-American. Although there is no
speciic regional Court for human rights in
Asia, a dynamic discourse leading towards
that idea is developing recently. Therefore,
it must be underlined that the spreading and
implementation of universal human right
norms and values had been systematically
advanced by States, International Organizations, individuals, and even Non-state
Actors.
b.
The Human Rights Protection
Internationally Institutionalized
The internationalization of values and
universal principles of human rights should
be appreciated by observing the acceptance
and implementation of human rights at the
global level. As a scholar pointed out that any
global moral vision must begin with human
rights. The acceptance and development of a
universal value and vocabulary airming our
commitment to human dignity and freedom
both nationally and globally. This evolvement
even has even been considered as the greatest
ethical and political legacy of the twentieth
century.7 The universal principles of human
rights are appreciated and implemented by

7

8

311

international, trans-national and national
institutions. Implementation of universal
human rights should not be relied on the
consent of any state, however, it should be
based on the universal validity of human
rights. It then could be envisaged that this
trend would likely uprising new challenges
and developing legal norms that shall be taken
into consideration and observed accordingly
by States.
Institutionalization and enforcement
of human rights norms by international
community shall be seen as a commitment
and concern of the international community
for the adherence of values and efort of
human rights protection around the world.
Later on, we have witnessed that there is a
new paradigm in the international community,
in which human rights are derogating
State sovereignty. This new paradigm has
created an impetus for the development of
international legal norms concerning State
sovereignty restriction vis a vis human rights
protection. Apart from standard setting
adopted and established in the international
legal instruments, additionally, such
developments have also been reinforced by
the establishment of International Criminal
Court both in the form of an Ad Hoc basis
such as International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) &
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
(ICTR as well as the permanent international
court system: International Criminal Court
upon the adoption of the Rome Statute in
1998.8 Thus, at this juncture, respect for and
protection of human rights are crucial and
should be considered as valid moral and legal
judgement for the international humanitarian

Surakiart Sathirathai, “Renewing Our Global Values: A Multilateralism for Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom”, Harvard Human Rights
Journal¸Vol. 19, 2006, pp. 1-28.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (often referred to as the International Criminal Court Statute or the Rome Statute) is
the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome on 17 July 1998 and it
entered into force on 1 July 2002.

312

MIMBAR HUKUM Volume 29, Nomor 2, Juni 2017, Halaman 308-320

intervention in the contemporary international
legal system. Human rights must be prioritize
over sovereignty (Human Rights beyond
sovereignty).
In this regards, it is interesting that in the
development of contemporary international
law and relations, there has been a process of
functional evolution of human rights. In the
irst decade post­World War II, international
community developed a process of “mind
and standard setting”. Speciically, there was
an efort of the establishment of normative
standards and also a mind-set nurturing that
was commencing and directing to adopt
universalism of human rights. In addition,
humanity and human right values had been
recognized and accepted by a States as a
universal phenomenon that must be fought
for and then have to be fostered accordingly.
In the period of 1945-1960, human rights
norms and values had a function as a legal
and moral justiication. In this respects there
was a contention on the “status quo” based on
universal human rights norms. Human rights
norms and values have been referred as the
foundation for the struggle against foreign
rule and domination. In addition, in 19801990, many people in this world also recited
human rights as referral in the movement to
ight against dictatorial or domestic dictators.
Recently, in the 21th century, there
is a multi-level government consolidation
as an efort to uphold human rights as
international law norm. Consequently, there
is a “Multi-level Governance” framed as
enforcement of international law. Since
1990s, there has been a justiication in the
international system to impose sanctions
and to undertake humanitarian intervention
and even the emergence of the doctrine
of R2P (Responsibility to Protect). In this
context, human rights considered to be more
prominent than sovereignty, or in other
words human rights beyond sovereignty.

This has been proven for example when
the international community supported
and implemented the establishment of
international court in the form of an ad hoc
basis such as International Criminal Tribunal
for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and
recently the establishment of a permanent
tribunal; the International Criminal Court
(ICC) based on the 1998 Rome Statute.
The reason behind the internationalization of human right values is that
the perpetrators of human rights violations
committed their action with the pretext
of under their oicial capacity. In both de
jure and de facto, the perpetrators are often
a part of the State organs. In this sense,
on behalf of their oicial title they can
pretext to unleash their responsibilities and
acquire the impunity. The human rights
violations represent as violations against
international rule. Thus, the responsibility
is conferred to the individual as perpetrator
of the committed crime. In this regard, the
international community viewed that there
is a universal interest to prevent repetition of
similar crimes. The most important aspect is
that there are disparities within and between
countries in addressing human rights
violations. In this context, there are issues
regarding the failure from authority of the
State in addressing human rights violations.
The failure of States, due to their unable and
or unwillingness to prosecute the wrongdoers
will invoke the application of international
protection as a complementary system.
c.
Protection of Human Rights as an
Obligation Erga Omnes
Eventually, there is strong argument
to acknowledge human rights in the
international law and international relation
due to the following reasons. In the context
of promotion, respect for and protection
of human rights, it is generally agreed by

Riyanto, The Emergence of Universalism and the Decline of Supranationalism

international community that every State
has the interest and obligation to ensure
and accomplish according to the existing
international legal instruments. For State,
protection of universal human rights is an
obligation erga omnes, consequently, should
there is an action categorized as gross violation
of human rights, there is obligation of every
state to respond accordingly in line with the
existing agreed international mechanisms
for the sake of protecting the victims,
preventing further casualties, restoration, and
improvement of public order.9 This postulate
has been supported and strengthened by legal
doctrine10 as well as judicial decisions (case
law )11 in the contemporary international
legal system.
2.
Sovereignty Reinterpreted
There are various deinitions and concepts of
State sovereignty in the study of international law
and international relations.12 Sovereignty is a one of
the fundamental concepts in the international legal
system. In the context of international relations
sovereignty refers to the independence and vice
versa. An independent State is a State that possesses
sovereignty, and a sovereign state is an independent
State that is not under the control of other State.
In international law, sovereignty and equality
are concepts that had been recognized as the
foundation for the implementation of such a system.
According to international law tradition, a state as
an independent and sovereign entity means that it
is not subject to the higher authority.13 Sovereignty
and equality are attributes that are essential for
an independent State as a subject of international
9

10

11
12
13

14
15

313

law. The recognition State’s sovereignty is
the fundamental requirements to obtain legal
personality in the international law system14. The
State’s sovereignty is also a foundation to exercise
rights recognized by the international law, such as
equality, territorial jurisdictions, right to determine
nationality for the citizen in their territory, right to
authorized and refused people to enter and leave
State territory, or even right to nationalization15.
In the era of globalism, we are challenged
with the expectation of inding out the new meaning
of sovereignty. The new meaning of the sovereignty
for the current context of our life must be assessed
with the observation of the dynamic process in the
international community. There are two factors
that must be considered as catalist to determine
the current situation, namely: (a) the development,
spreading and implementation of universal values
by international organizations, individuals and nonstates actors; and (b) the process of globalization,
globalism, economic liberalization and international
trade are increasingly and intensively widespread
in the various regions of the world. Recently, as a
consequence of globalization we have witnessed
the integration of markets, nation-states and
technologies to a degree never witnessed before in
a way that enabling individuals, corporations and
nation-states to reach around the world further,
faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before; and
in a way that is enabling the world to reach into
individuals, corporations and nation-states farther,
faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before.
In the present era of globalization, the
traditional interpretation of State’s sovereignty
would likely also be considered as an obstacle in

W. Michael Reisman, “ Legal responses to Genocide and Other Massive Violations of Human Rights”, Law and Contemporary Problem, Vol.
59, No. 4, 1996, pp. 75-76.
M. Cherif Bassiouni, “International Crime : Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes “, Law and Contemporary Problem, Vol. 59, No. 4, 1996,
pp. 63-74. See also Eric A Posner, 2008, Erga Omnes: Norms, Institutionalization, and Constitutionalism in International Law, Working
Papers, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago . See also John M. Olin, 2008, Public Law and Legal Theory, Working Papers No. 224,
University of Chicago Law School, Chicago.
See also the Barcelona Traction case [(Belgium vs Spain) (Second Phase) ICJ Rep 1970 3 at paragraph 33.
Jens Bartelson, “The Concept of Sovereignty Revisited,” European Journal of International Law, April, 2006, p. 463.
See generally Miguel Gonzalez Marcos, 2003, The Search for Common Democratic Standards Through Internasional Law, Heinrich Boll
Foundation, Washington, p. 1. See also Martin Dixon and Robert Mc. Corquodale, 2000, Cases and Materials on Internasional Law:Third
Edition, Blackstone Press Limited London, p. 248.
Ian Brownlie, 1990, Principles of Public International Law Fourth Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 287.
R.C. Hingorani, 1982, Modern International Law Second Edition, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, pp. 117-118.

314

MIMBAR HUKUM Volume 29, Nomor 2, Juni 2017, Halaman 308-320

encounter the humanitarian crises and the protection
of fundamental citizen’s right. Consequently,
there are two diferent concepts of sovereignty:
irstly, on the one hand sovereignty in the context
of absolutism16 and secondly, sovereignty in the
context of relativism.
The second concept of sovereignty, paralel
with the development in the international society.
Sovereignty in the contemporary international
society has developed into the new meaning and
context. Sovereignty is considered as relational
tenet. Sovereignty is no more an as insular, close,
narrow and restricted concept. However, it is an
open and relational concept, emphasizing the
capacity of establishing external relations rather
than persistently rebuf external boost and support.
Sovereignty should not be exploited as a pretext by
the domestic authority to lock up from interaction
wirth external parties. The capacity to engage
external relationships and interact with external
parties even would sthrengten the Sovereignty of
the concerned State.
In this way, states as subject of international
law should have a consensus and mutual dialogue
among them and with the existing international
institutions to ind out a new meaning of sovereignty.
The globalization process has also relecting a
reality that we are living in the era where the
sovereignty cannot be exercised as a shield to limit
the movement of peoples, assets, information,
values and ideas. This situation also relects the
future global governance where globalization
process and globalism, would eventually erode
and eliminate the absolute sovereignty. As a result,
some international law scholars believe that a new
world order is emerging based on a complex web of
transnational networks.
16

17

18

There are three patterns in which globalization
and globalism seriuosly afected State sovereignty.
Firstly, the expansion of trade and capital markets
internationally have altered the State in controling
its domestic economic matters. Secondly, as a
response to globalization and globalism States have
transfered and or delegated their powers towards
international organizations. Thirdly, there are new
norms of international law, more speciically norms
relevant to international economic relations adopted
and implemented by States and international
institutions which are now recognized as the New
Frontier of International Law”17. These new norms
of international law which had been processed and
institutionalized by international organizations
especially the World Trade Organisation, in practice,
limits the independence of the national authority on
rule and policy making, which previously are fully
retained in their hand18 .
It is interesting to note that in such a context
the former Director General of this organisation even
underlined that WTO incorporates an integrated
and distinctive legal order. Bringing together
traditional international law, which it respects, and
contemporary international law, which it is helping
to promote. The WTO is both a product and a vehicle
of that evolution. Indeed, the WTO is an international
organization that brings together two concepts of
international law. In fact, nowadays the WTO has
become a part of the international legal order as a
sui generis legal system. The WTO and its legal
order in the international legal order have proven as
a catalyst for international mutual respect towards
international coherence and even for increased
global governance, especially in the international
trade law. It is clear that the WTO is both a product
and a vehicle for international community evolution.

In the context of traditional international legal framework State Sovereignty generally pointed as referral for “the Act of State Doctrine” or
“the Sovereign Act Doctrine”. This is an international legal doctrine emanating in the 19th century in which it has been airmed that every
sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the
acts of the government of another done within its own territory.
See also generally Peter van den Bossche, 2005, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization Text, Cases and Materials, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Robert Howse, “ Sovereignty, Lost and Found”, in Wen hua Shan, et al., 2008, Redeining Sovereignty in International Economic Law¸
Oregon, Oxford, pp. 61-62. See also Julian Ku and John Yoo, “Globalization and Sovereignty”, Berkeley Journal Internationall Law, Vol. 31,
Issue 1, 2013, p. 210.

Riyanto, The Emergence of Universalism and the Decline of Supranationalism

Indeed, the WTO is an international organization
that brings together two concepts of international
law. It has two unique speciicities, in which it is
a permanent negotiating forum between sovereign
states and is therefore a cooperation organization
akin to international conferences established
under traditional international law. Apart from
that, the WTO also established and implemented a
sophisticated dispute settlement mechanism which
makes it an integration organization, rooted in
contemporary international law. In fact, the WTO’s
sophisticated dispute settlement mechanism makes
it a distinctive organization.10
The policy and legal frameworks developed
and implemented through the WTO signify that
there is now a world trade constitution adopted
and enforced globally.20 International community
has moved from “political constitutionalism”
adopted following the Second World War by the
establishment of the United Nations, to “economic
constitutionalism” by the establishment of the
World Trade Organization in 1994. In the context
of international economic and trade law there
would be “One World, One International System/
Standard “implemented globally. Once the standard
implemented, it become very diicult to be
withdrawn.
It is clear that at the end of 20th century
and in the beginning of 21th century, there was a
transformation on the concept and nuance of the
state sovereignty and its implementation in the
international community. The change of the society,
institutional framework, technological advance as
well as the intensity of economic activity among
States have led to the revival of the meaning of state
sovereignty under the current international system.
In historical terms, the practice of States in deining
sovereignty within the framework of international
relations has long been debated and the debate still
19

20

21

315

continue until now.21
In the context of modern international law,
the globalization has transformed the function of
international law ; where the international law has
become vehicle for States to cooperate each other
regarding new areas of international relations
such as: economic and trade, environmental,
security and human rights. This situation also
necessitates States to rethink the previous notion
of the inviolable State sovereignty. Moreover,
nowadays States also have choices and outlook to
consider response toward globalization process and
globalism. States weighed the costs and benefits
of the loss of this valuable sovereignty.
It is plausible to underline the notion
that in the contemporary international system,
globalization has created paradox situation,
especially for the third world countries which has
been called as “globalization tri-lemma”. In this
sense, countries cannot have: national sovereignty,
hyper-globalization/economic liberalization, and
democracy at the same time. They can only ever
choose two out of the three, it is not possible to have
all three. Thus, it is possible for countries to have
two of three things: deep economic integration,
democratic politics and autonomous nation-states.
The globalization has also gave the new
meaning of the classic issues such as: sovereignty, the
role of international organization and or individuals
and even the issues concerning border. The on going
process of balancing between sovereignty on the
one hand ; and humanitarianism , state economic
interests, individual freedoom, empowerment
of non-state entities on the other hand, should be
realized as an indication of the transformation of
international law from a system which previously
considered as State-centered system to individualcentered system and even more humanized
system. This transformation is a continuance of

Pascal Lamy, “The Place of WTO and its Law in the International Legal Order”, The European Journal of International Law (EJIL), Vol. 17,
No. 5, 2006, pp. 969-984.
See for example Jefrey L Dunof, “Why Constitutionalism Now : Text, Context and Historical Contingency of Idea”, Journal of International
Law & International Relations (JILIR), Vol. 1, No. 1-2, pp. 191- 212.
Kal Raustiala, “Rethinking the Sovereignty Debate in International Economic Law”, Journal of International Economic Law, December,
2003, p. 842.

316

MIMBAR HUKUM Volume 29, Nomor 2, Juni 2017, Halaman 308-320

the codiication and institutionalization of human
rights norms and values that had been started since
post-World War II by the endorsement of Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
3.
Response to Supranationalism
Recently we have witnessed that the authority
and powers of international organizations, have
all evolved in light of the forces of globalization.
The powers of international organization is even
stronger today. Learning from the international
history it seems that diferent countries have
diferent approach to formulate their response to the
challenges presented by globalization. One of the
thought-provoking issue deserves to be discussed
here is the response of States to the idea of supranationalism. In such a context, it is very logical
should we observe the situation which is going on
in Europe. More speciically we have to consider
the existence of the European Union.
The European Union ( EU ) has survived
more than half of a century. Even in the last two
decades its existence and development especially
in the context of regional integration, has inspired
countries and organisations in other regions. The
supranationalism paradigm adopted by this regional
organisation has provoked and considered as referral
by countries and organisations in other regions.
Many countries have coceived that European Union
is the most developed regional organisation in the
world. EU has been consiedered as the role model for
a regional integration and liberalization. However,
the fact about the vote of England to separate from
EU in the 23 June 2016 referendum, after joined
more than four decade has been pompting hesitation
concerning supranationalism concept. The idea of
supranationalism to be hotly debated in the near
future. There are many arguments that can be made
as to why the United Kingdom should remain within
the EU. Conversely, there are also many arguments
that can be made as to why the UK should depart
from the EU.
More than ivety years ago, European leaders
have proposed and designed an international
organization with supranational character. The

political and legal concept conirmed by the Paris
Treaty of 18 April 1951, initially purported as
an efort of re­organize and reconstruct Europe
democratically after the second World War.
The concept of supranationalism grasps a broad
and lexible connotation, it could encompass
international character, trans-national, even global.
The notion proposed by the French Foreign
Minister Robert Schumman, initially supported by
some Western Europe contries (French, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg),
however, later on it has encompassed almost
the Europe Continent, as other Western Europe
Countries, Britain and eastern Europe have also
joined.
There are reasons why supranationalism
adopted as an instrument for policy and transnational
politic, especially by the European States. First, the
power of an international organization is limited
and there is assumption that such a power would not
has implication to the national authority. Second,
generally speaking international organization
established by a treaty, thus its power and activities
explicitly conirmed by the member and or founder
States. In this context, international organization
powers and activities should be based on the consent
of the members.
In terms of membership, sovereignty is the
basis for and expressed in the consent of a State
to be a member of and bound by the international
organization. The powers of international
organization gained from the consent of the member
states. The consent given by states is not permanent
and could be withdrew any time.
Why EU is so attaractive and inspiring for
other regions ? In the last ive decades, international
organizations actively contribute in the making
process of international law . European integration
with supranational paradigm, has ofered incentive
for state governance. Supranationalism of EU has
ofered reasonable governance concepts, such as :
rule of law, economic development supported by;
integrated and liberalized trade ( single market);
monetary system; democratization and human

Riyanto, The Emergence of Universalism and the Decline of Supranationalism

rights standards; citizen mobility; cross-border
education and human resources qualiication; and
collective security.
Recently, the supra-nationalism is at stake.
There are, at least two reasons why the idea of supranationalism being contested from the bottom side.
First, there has been a transformation of the character
of international institution from Multilateral
Institution to Global Imperium. Secondly, there
is a Lack of Legitimacy in the decisian and
policy making process and its implication to the
constituents, peoples in the member States.
a.
Transformation from Multilateral
Institution to Global Imperium
At this time, the state of afairs
contemporary global legal and political
context, prompted by the strengthening role
and power of international organization vis a
vis states. The role and power of international
organizations are irming while the role and
power of State at global level is weakening in
the framework of decision and policy making
process relevant to the people interests.
International organization likewise EU,
has became a new imperium. Organization
that initially based on multilateral pooled
sovereignty transformed to an institution
having power of derogating State sovereignty.
Global imperium is a term to
illustrate the transformation of international
organization turning out as a political and
legal entity which is superior than the member
Mtates. There is asymetric relationship
between international organization and its
members. International organization has
become dominant and superior in front of
the national authorities of the founder states.
International organization hegemony has set
a side the prerogative of a state to decide
issues relevant to the peoples. The dicision
making power has been relocated to the
hand of international organization , including
its implementation and enforcement. The
decision of international organization

317

practically has superior normative implication
in the territory of the member states.
Consequenly, there is discourse
concerning character and the signiicance
of sovereignty and its application in the
present international system. The social
fransformation, institutional framework
and the avancement of technology as well
as international economic transaction have
driven towards the reinterpretation of
sovereignty in the contemporary context of
international system. Historically there has
been a long debate concerning state practices
in the interpretation of sovereignty, and
nowadays the debate is even more intriguing
in the light of the growing role of international
organizations in the international arena.
b.
Lack of Legitimacy
In fact, the character of international
organization as global imperium has a
signiicant implication in the decision
making process on matter relevant to both
in the inter-state relations and even in the
domestic policy, especially there is lack of
deliberative democracy. Peoples afected by
the policy and decision of the international
organization are questioning about the
accountability and fairness in the decision
making process. Citizens in the member
state of have considered that decisions of
supranational organization are inconsistent
or even contradictory with their interests.
Nevertheless, the strengthening role
and power of supranational organization
which have direct impact to the government,
corporations and individuals have aggravated
skepticism concerning its legitimacy.
The skepticism over its legitimacy, even
stronger as the decision making process in
such a supranational organization has been
dominated by the elite groups and lack of
participatory process. Peoples in the member
states as the constituents are being left behind
in the structural contestation setting in the

318

MIMBAR HUKUM Volume 29, Nomor 2, Juni 2017, Halaman 308-320

supranational organization.
International organizations are said
to lack democratic authority in this respect
since their law-making processes generally
take place in the seat of organs that are not
chosen by the people they are supposed
to represent. In this regard, it is commonly
alleged that individuals, NGOs and other nonState actors cannot suiciently inluence the
decision-making processes of international
organizations, which are then thought to lack
democratic legitimacy for this reason as well.
The decisions and actions of international
organizations violate the individual rights
of citizens, which is further ground for
arguments criticizing these organizations for
not upholding democratic principles.
International organization are also
criticized due to its role in facilitating
and promoting global capitalism and
neo-liberalism which have eroding state
sovereignty and prerogative of nations in
deciding decisive issues. Above and beyond
that, integration of States into supranational
organization has brought about dis-incentive
to its members such as: disparity and gap of
economic development and marginalization
of local citizen; mass inlux of irregular
migrants; security problems (terrorism);
human traicking; and trans­national crimes.
It is noteworthy that Brexit referendum
signaling a strong indication that the agenda
and vision of supranational organization
are inconsistent with or even in conlict
with the interests and agenda of citizens
in the member States. In such a situation
stakeholders in the member States might be
move forward questioning the legitimacy of
such a supranational organization. Should its

22

23

legitimacy has been questioned, eventually
the credibility of supranational organization
likewise EU would be in jeopardy. The cost
and beneit of supranationalism paradigm
would be hotly debated.
In the Brexit referendum of 23 June
2016, England and Wales voted to leave the
EU, while Scotland and Northern Ireland
voted to remain22. Following that, there has
been a debate about how the relationship
between EU and the United Kingdom would
be manage in a new situation and framework.
It would be interesting to scrutinize the
political and institutional steps taken, or to
be taken, both by the UK and by the EU in
the context of the post Brexit referendum
vote, and into how matters may evolve in the
coming months and years from a legal and
institutional perspective23.
It is clear that there has been criticism
about the democracy deicit in international
organizations. However, it is not easy to
discuss the legitimacy of international
organizations and their decisions from
the perspective of democracy. Attempts
to improve the legitimacy of international
organizations from the perspective of
democracy include discussions on the rule
of law, transparency in the decision-making
process, the disclosure of and access to
information, and the budget eiciency and
prevention of corruption in the international
civil service. These are often included in the
concept of accountability.
C.

Conclusion
It is interesting to observe the response
of States and international organizations to the
globalism and globalization tendencies in the

On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) voted to leave the European Union (EU) after 43 years of membership. In fact, 52 per cent of
the UK citizens that participated in the Brexit referendum voted to leave the EU. Still, Scotland and Northern Ireland, two out of the four UK
constituent nations, voted to remain.
Miguel Tell Cremades and Petr Novak, “Brexit and the European Union: General Institutional and Legal Considerations”, http://www.
europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses, accessed on 13th April 2017.

Riyanto, The Emergence of Universalism and the Decline of Supranationalism

future. States and international organizations as the
main actor in the international system have to deal
with dillematic list of options; whether rhey would
like to exploit supranationalism or multilateralism
approach.
The costs and beneits of globalization
continue to be hotly debated, in the process of
seeking the balance between the three competing
edges of liberalization, national sovereignty and
democratic legitimacy from the constituents. International community needs international institutions, however, such institutions should not turn out
into global government that improperly constraints
domestic political sovereignty.
Globalisme and international cooperation are
important and being considered as a token of civilization in the contemporary international society.
The role of international organizations in the contemporary international system remain signiicant,
however, constituents in the member States would
judge whether they could maintain their relevance
to the constituents interests and keep mutual relatianship with the member States. Otherwise, member states would say goodbye and revoke their participation.
Learning from the process going on in
the European countries which have pooled their
sovereignty in the hand of a supranational body,
it seems that international regional organizations
other than Eropean Union would like to consider
and make a critical relection concerning their
roadmap on regional integration. States joined such
an international supranational organization would

319

likely emphasize that the agenda and vision of a
supranational organization must be in line with with
the interests and agenda of citizens in the member
States. Otherwise, there would be more and more
States member departing from such an organization.
Taking into consideration the transformation
dealing with the concept and nuance of the
state sovereignty and its implementation in the
international community and the global trend of
liberalization and universalization on the one side;
and national interests on the other side, it seems
that multilateral institution would likely the most
feasible and rational choice for nations, especially
for the nations outside Europe continent.
Along with the transformation dealing with
the concept and nuance of the state sovereignty and
its implementation, there is the need to consider and
recommend statist reform in the light of inescapable
globalization and globalism. Statist reform is
needed especially for the Third World countries in
response to supranationalism and the hegemony
of international institutions. Statist reform would
encompass but not limited to classical issues such as
good governance, structural adjustment of national
institutions and competition policy. In this regards
the Third World States should develop strategies
at international level to intercept the negotiations
and decision making process in the international
institutions. Furthermore, the national authority
of the third word States have also creatively
develop strategy in advocating human rights of the
marginalized peoples in these States.

REFERENCES
A.
Books
Bossche, Peter van den, 2005, The Law and Policy
of the World Trade Organization Text, Cases
and Materials, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Brownlie, Ian, 1990, Principles of Public
International Law Fourth Edition, Clarendon
Press, Oxford.

Dixon, Martin and Corquodale, Robert Mc., 2000,
Cases and Materials on Internasional
Law:Third Edition, Blackstone Press Limited
London.
Hingorani, R.C., 1982, Modern International Law
Second Edition, Oxford & IBH Publishing
Co., New Delhi.
International Commission on Intervention and

320

MIMBAR HUKUM Volume 29, Nomor 2, Juni 2017, Halaman 308-320

State Sovereignty (ICISS), 2001, The
Responsibility to Protect: Rep